The below are a very small sampling of some
quotes taken from
peer reviewed journals and other
evolutionist writings.
In nearly all cases,
the authors do believe in the general concept of
evolution,
and yet are pointing out weaknesses
with the theory!

"A fair result can be obtained only
by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each question..." -
Charles Darwin

Life from
Non-Life

Weakness: Chemical
Origin of Life Has Not Even Been Demonstrated To
Be Possible!

"If there were a basic principle of
matter which somehow drove organic systems
toward life, its existence should easily be
demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for
instance, take a swimming bath to represent
the primordial soup. Fill it with any
chemicals of a non-biological nature you
please. Pump any gases over it, or through it,
you please, and shine any kind of radiation on
it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment
proceed for a year and see how many of those
2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living
cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give
the answer, and so save the time and trouble
and expense of actually doing the experiment.
You would find nothing at all, except possibly
for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and
other simple organic chemicals. How can I be
so confident of this statement? Well, if it
were otherwise, the experiment would long
since have been done and would be well-known
and famous throughout the world. The cost of
it would be trivial compared to the cost of
landing a man on the Moon."

p. 23
"In short there is not a shred of
objective evidence to support the hypothesis
that life began in an organic soup here on the
Earth."

Weakness: No Transitional
Fossils, particularly in huge systematic gaps, not
just species to species!

"Geology assuredly does not reveal any
such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as
I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the
geological record." - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1st Edition, 1859.

In the late 1960s and early
1970s, over one hundred years after Darwin
first published On
The Origin of Species, massive gaps in the
fossil record persisted.The gaps were not just between what were
believed to be closely related species, but more
troublesome for gradualists, included large
systematic gaps such as the Cambrian explosion,
the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates,
and marine vertebrates (fish) to amphibians,
reptiles, and mammals.The plant kingdom had similar difficulties.These gaps were widely known in academic
circles but rarely discussed openly.

Hence in 1972, Niles Eldridge and Harvard's late Stephen
J. Gould, (a Marxist), neither of whom were questioning the general concept
of evolution, proposed what is referred to as punctuated equilibrium, that
in essence said that evolution was mostly unobservable (i.e. did not usually
happen), but that when it did it happened so fast that it left no evidence!

Why did Gould propose this fundamentally un-testable
idea?It was precisely in an
attempt to craft a different (non-Darwinian) theory of evolution (albeit
still driven by natural selection), that better fit observable data, or more
correctly, the lack of data, commonly referred to as the "gaps in the
fossil record"!To quote the
late Gould in a 1977 issue of Natural History, “the extreme rarity of
transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of
paleontology — we fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s
history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural
selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we
profess to study.”In
short, there was no evidence Harvard's Gould could use to support evolution,
so he carefully crafted an alternative theory that didn't require evidence
at all!

Weakness: Major Structures Have No Known
Ancestry!

From Online edition of Scientific American, March 2003 issue...

Hence in 1972, Niles Eldridge and Harvard's late Stephen
J. Gould, (a Marxist), neither of whom were questioning the general concept
of evolution, proposed what is referred to as punctuated equilibrium, that
in essence said that evolution was mostly unobservable (i.e. did not usually
happen), but that when it did it happened so fast that it left no evidence!

Why did Gould propose this fundamentally un-testable
idea?It was precisely in an
attempt to craft a different (non-Darwinian) theory of evolution (albeit
still driven by natural selection), that better fit observable data, or more
correctly, the lack of data, commonly referred to as the "gaps in the
fossil record"!To quote the
late Gould in a 1977 issue of Natural History, “the extreme rarity of
transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of
paleontology — we fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s
history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural
selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we
profess to study.”In
short, there was no evidence Harvard's Gould could use to support evolution,
so he carefully crafted an alternative theory that didn't require evidence
at all!

Weakness: Major Structures Have No Known
Ancestry!

From Online edition of Scientific American, March 2003 issue...

"The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general
question or the origin of evolutionary novelties-- structures that have no
clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures
(homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory
provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the
size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give
as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures,
including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers."

Weakness: Haeckels Embryos Were Fraudulent!

Stephen Jay Gould, Atheist-Marxist-Evolutionist

[The German scientist, Wilhelm His] "...accused Haeckel of shocking
dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the
similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of
[Haeckel's book]." [emphasis added]

(Note: Until his recent death, Stephen J. Gould was one of the most
outspoken proponents of evolution, specifically the punctuated equilibrium
variety.)

"Pick up an encyclopedia and look up the section on the Earth’s
atmosphere. It will probably tell you that the primeval atmosphere of our
planet was dominated by methane, and that this hydrogen-rich gas was
necessary for the formation of the first complex organic molecules, the
precursors of life. But an increasing number of geophysicists, biologists
and climatologists would take issue with the encyclopedias on both these
claims. These scientists would base their objections on modern evidence
provided by other planets, by the effects of volcanic eruptions and other
strands from a broad spectrum of scientific research."

p. 413

"This picture captured the popular imagination, and the story of life
emerging in the seas or pools of a planet swathed in an atmosphere of
methane and ammonia soon became part of the scientific folklore that ‘every
school child knows.’"

p. 416

"All we have to do now is rewrite all those textbooks and ensure that
‘every school child knows’ what the best theory of the evolution of the
Earth’s atmosphere and the origins of life is today: that life developed in
the pools on the surface of a planet with carbon-dioxide atmosphere bearing
only a trace of ammonia, perhaps itself the product of chemical reactions in
the desert sands."

Weakness: The Assumed Early
Atmosphere in Miller Urey was Wrong - Part 2!

Anonymous, "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere
and Life," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63
(November 1982), pp. 1328-1330.

p. 1328

"Recent photochemical calculations by atmospheric
researchers at Langley were presented at an international scientific
conference last fall. They state that, at the time complex organic molecules
(the precursors of living systems) were first formed from atmospheric gases
the earth’s atmosphere was not composed primarily of methane, ammonia and
hydrogen as was previously supposed. Instead it was composed of carbon
dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor, all resulting from volcanic activity."

p. 1329

"Ultraviolet radiation on the earth from the young sun may
have been up to 100,000 times greater than today."

p. 1329

"In the case of our calculated oxygen levels, one bit of
evidence from the early geological record supports our conclusion. It was
puzzling, but the geologists know from their analyses of the oldest known
rocks that the oxygen level of the early atmosphere had to be much higher
than previously calculated. Analyses of these rocks, estimated to be more
than 3.5 billion years old, found oxidized iron in amounts that called for
atmospheric oxygen levels to be at least 110 times greater and perhaps up to
one billion times greater than otherwise accepted."

p. 1329

"How could life have formed and evolved in such a hostile
environment? According to our calculations, there was virtually no ozone in
the early atmosphere to protect against ultraviolet radiation levels that
were much greater than they are today. It clearly should have affected the
evolution of life on earth."

Weakness: The Assumed Early Atmosphere in Miller
Urey was Wrong - Part 3!

"Abstract. Geologic evidence often presented in favor of an early
anoxic atmosphere is both contentious and ambiguous…. Recent biological and
interplanetary studies seem to favor an early oxidized atmosphere rich in CO2
and possibly containing free molecular oxygen. The existence of early red
beds, sea and groundwater sulphate, oxidized terrestrial and sea-floor
weathering crusts, and the distribution of ferric iron in sedimentary rocks
are geological observations and inferences compatible with the biological
and planetary predictions. It is suggested that from the time of the
earliest dated rocks at 3.7 b.y. ago, Earth had an oxygenic atmosphere."

p. 145

"For the past fifty years or more, speculation and experimentation have
fueled the notion of an early Earth with an anoxic and possibly reducing
atmosphere and coupled this to arguments concerning the origin of
life…General acceptance of this model has raised it to the level of dogma,
and it permeates much of earth science thinking. However recent advances in
many fields and new ideas on the origin of life have thrown serious doubts
on the anoxic model and may have removed the need for it."

Weakness: Even RNA Life Doesn't Explain It and
Isn't Consistent With What is Seen Today!

"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of
which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the
same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And
so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in
fact, have originated by chemical means."

p. 78

"We proposed that RNA might well have come first and established what is
now called the RNA world…. This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if
prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate
without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of
protein synthesis."

p. 83

"The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. As we
have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in
favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the
RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future."

Weakness: Explanatory Power is Weak...There Are
More Questions than Answers!

"Abstract. More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of
life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better
perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth
rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal
theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a
confession of ignorance."

p. 348

"Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about detailed
evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principal evolutionary processes
from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have not been proven by
experimentation and that the environmental conditions under which these
processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where
the genetic information of all living cells originates, how the first
replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely
complex structure-function relationships in modern cells came into
existence."

p. 349

"It appears that the field has now reached a stage of stalemate, a stage
in which hypothetical arguments often dominate over facts based on
experimentation or observation."

p. 352

"In spite of many attempts, there have been no breakthroughs during the
past 30 years to help to explain the origin of chirality in living cells."

Weakness: DNA Chirality Is A Necessity but
Remains A Mystery!

Cohen, Jon, "Getting All Turned Around Over the Origins of Life on
Earth," Science, vol. 267 (March 3, 1995), pp. 1265-1266.

p. 1265

"Why do the sugar molecules in DNA and RNA twist to the right in all
known organisms? Similarly, all of the amino acids from which proteins are
formed twist to the left. The reason these molecules have such uniform
handedness, or ‘chirality,’ is not known, but there is no shortage of
theories on the subject. And, as was clear at a recent meeting on the topic
in Los Angeles, there is also no shortage of passion, which is
understandable, because the question of homochirality speaks to the mother
of all scientific mysteries: the origin of life."

p. 1265

"The meeting participants did agree on one thing: Homochirality—the total
predominance of one chiral form, or ‘enantiomer’—is necessary for
present-day life because the cellular machinery that has evolved to keep
organisms alive and replicating, from microorganisms to humans, is built
around the fact that genetic material veers right and amino acids veer
left."

p. 1265

"One division came over a question that resembles the chicken-or-the-egg
riddle: What came first, homochirality or life? Organic chemist William
Bonner, professor emeritus at Stanford University, argued that homochirality
must have preceded life."

p. 1265

"Bonner argued that homochirality is essential for life because without
it, genetic material could not copy itself. Specifically, studies have shown
that the two complementary strands of genetic material that make up DNA
cannot bind with each other if they are in a ‘racemic’ mixture, a state in
which there is an equilibrium of left-handed and right-handed enantiomers."

Weakness: Pathways of Evolutionary Development in
Chemical Origin of Life Remain Unexplained and Even Unimaginable!

"The problems of reconstructing possible pathways of prebiotic evolution
in the absence of any kind of fossil evidence are indeed formidable.
Successful attack on these problems will require, on the one hand, the
boldness to imagine and create new concepts describing the organization of
not-yet-living populations of molecules and, on the other hand, the humility
to learn the hard way, by laborious experiment, which molecular pathways are
consistent with the stubborn facts of chemistry. We are still at the very
beginning of the quest for understanding of the origin of life. We do not
yet have even a rough picture of the nature of the obstacles that prebiotic
evolution has had to overcome. We do not have a well-defined set of criteria
by which to judge whether any given theory of the origin of life is
adequate."

"Early in November, an announcement of the discovery of some fossil
prokaryotes from South Africa pushed the antiquity of life back to 3.4
billion years."

p. 10

"If true monerans were alive 3.4 billion years ago, then the common
ancestor of monerans and … ‘methanogens’ must be considerably more ancient.
Since the oldest dated rocks, the Isua Supracrustals of West Greenland, are
3.8 billion years old, we are left with very little time between the
development of suitable conditions for life on the earth’s surface and the
origin of life."

p. 24

"Life apparently arose about as soon as the earth became cool enough to
support it."

p. 24

"Gradualism, the idea that all change must be smooth, slow, and steady,
was never read from the rocks. It was primarily a prejudice of
nineteenth-century liberalism facing a world in revolution. But it continues
to color our supposedly objective reading of life’s history."

p. 24

"The history of life, as I read it, is a series of long stable states,
punctuated at rare intervals by major events that occur with great rapidity
and set up the next stable era…. My favorite metaphor is a world of
occasional pulses, driving recalcitrant systems from one stable state to the
next."

"The fossil record of primate evolution is obviously incomplete, despite
major continuing achievements by field paleontologists. But how large
are the gaps? Do we merely need to bridge over a few spaces here and
there, or are there in fact yawning chasms? Our effectiveness in
sampling past primate species has major implications for interpretations of
primate evolution based on the known fossil record...."

Martin goes on to discuss that with primates, only 3.8% of assumed
species in the last 65 million years have been found! When only
'modern' primates are examined, the number drops to 3.4% !

p. 233

It is clear that there are still many uncertainties regarding the course
and timing of early primate evolution...Limited sampling of the fossil
record, combined with the fragmentary nature of most of the fossils
concerned, also explains why interpretations of primate evolution have been
subject to repeated, often extensive revision. In the face of major
gaps in the fossil record, far-reaching interpretation of fragmentary fossil
remains can easily lead to misinterpretation of phylogenetic relationships.

(For more info from this article, including a graphic depicting the low
sample rate, see the Oct 3, 2003 newsletter
here.)

Weakness - Facts Do Not Support Evolutionary
Development of Cells!

Green, David E., and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the
Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), 420 pp.

p. 403

"The popular conception of primitive cells as the starting point for the
origin of the species is really erroneous. There was nothing functionally
primitive about such cells. They contained basically the same biochemical
equipment as do their modern counterparts.

"How, then, did the precursor cell arise? The only unequivocal rejoinder
to this question is that we do not know."

pp. 406-7

"Although seven steps are shown, leading from atoms to ecosystems, there
is one step that far outweighs the others in enormity: the step from
macromolecules to cells. All the others can be accounted for on theoretical
grounds—if not correctly, at least elegantly. However, the
macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which
lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is
conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that
cells arose on this planet."

"But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical
genetics are still unanswered. How the genetic code first appeared and then
evolved and, earlier than that, how life itself originated on earth remain
for the future to resolve, though dim and narrow pencils of illumination
already play over them. The fact that in all organisms living today the
processes both of replication of the DNA and of the effective translation of
its code require highly precise enzymes and that, at the same time the
molecular structures of those same enzymes are precisely specified by the
DNA itself, poses a remarkable evolutionary mystery…. Did the code and the
means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost
incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the
extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be
coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of
evolution after Darwin) this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as
the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation."

"A natural and fundamental question to ask on learning of these
incredibly interlocking pieces of software and hardware is: ‘How did they
ever get started in the first place?’ It is truly a baffling thing. One has
to imagine some sort of a bootstrap process occurring, somewhat like that
which is used in the development of new computer languages—but a bootstrap
from simple molecules to entire cells is almost beyond one’s power to
imagine. There are various theories on the origin of life. They all run
aground on this most central of all central questions: ‘How did the Genetic
Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA
molecules), originate?’ For the moment, we will have to content ourselves
with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer. And perhaps,
experiencing that sense of wonder and awe is more satisfying than having an
answer—at least for a while."

Weakness: DNA/RNA/Enzymes/Catalysts Can't Be Made
Even in the Lab - Much Less in a Hostile Pre-biotic "Soup"

"None of these approaches has gained enough support to qualify as a new
paradigm. On the other hand, none has been ruled out. That bothers Miller
who is known as both a rigorous experimentalist and a bit of a curmudgeon.
Some theories, he asserts, do not merit serious attention. He calls the
organic-matter-from-space concept ‘a loser,’ the vent hypothesis ‘garbage’
and the pyrite theory ‘paper chemistry.’ Such work, he grumbles, perpetuates
the reputation of the origin-of-life field as being on the fringe of science
and not worthy of serious pursuit."

p. 119

"DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of
catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA,
but neither can DNA form without proteins."

p. 119

"But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely,
more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components
are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions,
much less under plausible prebiotic ones."

p. 125

"About a decade ago Orgel and Crick managed to provoke the public and
their colleagues by speculating that the seeds of life were sent to the
earth in a spaceship by intelligent beings living on another planet. Orgel
says the proposal, which is known as directed panspermia, was ‘sort of a
joke.’"

p. 125

"Miller, who after almost four decades is still in hard pursuit of life’s
biggest secret, agrees that the field needs a dramatic finding to constrain
the rampant speculation."

p. 125

"Does he ever entertain the possibility that genesis was a miracle not
reproducible by mere humans? Not at all, Miller replies. ‘I think we just
haven’t learned the right tricks yet,’ he says."

"It was already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction
but the embodiment of life’s mechanisms; the consecutive triplets of
nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited but they also guide
the construction of proteins.

"So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as
obscure as the origin of life itself."

Weakness: Evolution Doesn't Explain The Origin of
INFORMATION in the Genetic Code!

"High school textbooks used to make a big point about the materials that
make up the human body being worth about 97 cents. Yale molecular biologist,
Harold J. Morowitz … got out a biochemical company’s catalog and added up
the cost of the synthesized materials, such as hemoglobin … and came up with
… a six million-dollar man ($6,000,015.44) to be exact).

"Professor Morowitz’s calculations … drive home a more important point,
however—that ‘information is more expensive than matter.’ What the
biochemical companies offer is simply the highest ‘informational’ (most
organized) state of materials commercially available. And even these are
mostly taken from living animals; if synthesis of all the compounds offered
had been done from basic elements, their cost might be as high as $6
billion.

"The logical extreme of the exercise, obviously, is that science is
nowhere near getting close to synthesizing a human. Just to take the next
step of organization—the organelle level—would cost perhaps $6 trillion."

"Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern
version of Genesis. The ‘fundamental’ forces of gravity, electromagnetism
and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest….
But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains
hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step,
from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject
of either controversy or complete bewilderment."

p. 31

"We are grappling with a classic ‘chicken and egg’ dilemma. Nucleic acids
are required to make proteins, whereas proteins are needed to make nucleic
acids and also to allow them to direct the process of protein manufacture
itself."

p. 32

"The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the
way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost
complete mystery."

p. 33

"In their more public pronouncements, researchers interested in the
origin of life sometimes behave a bit like the creationist opponents they so
despise—glossing over the great mysteries that remain unsolved and
pretending they have firm answers that they have not really got…. We still
know very little about how our genesis came about, and to provide a more
satisfactory account than we have at present remains one of science’s great
challenges."

"The essence of his argument last week was that the information content
of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 1040,000—
representing the specificity with which some 2000 genes, each of which might
be chosen from 1020 nucleotide sequences of the appropriate length, might be
defined. Evolutionary processes would, Hoyle said, require several Hubble
times to yield such a result. The chance that higher life forms might have
emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping
through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.’

"Of adherents of biological evolution, Hoyle said he was at a loss to
understand ‘biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be
obvious.’"

"If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an
event would this be?

"This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about
two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything rather less than the
average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty
possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty
multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20200
and is approximately equal to 10260, that is, a one
followed by 260 zeros.

"… Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of rather modest
length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been
even more immense…. The great majority of sequences can never have been
synthesized at all, at any time."

p. 88

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to
be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have
been satisfied to get it going."

"Even today we have no way of rigorously estimating the probability or
degree of isolation of even one functional protein. It is surely a little
premature to claim that random processes could have assembled mosquitoes and
elephants when we still have to determine the actual probability of the
discovery by chance of one single functional protein molecule."

p. 329-30

"Altogether a typical cell contains about ten million million atoms.
Suppose we choose to build an exact replica to a scale one thousand million
times that of the cell so that each atom of the model would be the size of a
tennis ball. Constructing such a model at the rate of one atom per minute,
it would take fifty million years to finish, and the object we would end up
with would be the giant factory, described above, some twenty kilometres in
diameter, with a volume thousands of times that of the Great Pyramid."

p. 330

"Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches
1015 or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order of 1015
are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half
the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees
containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one
hundred thousand leaves the total number of leaves in the forest would be
1015, equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain."

p. 334

"The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any
other known system; it is so efficient that all the information needed to
specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand
millionths of a gram. The information necessary to specify the design of all
the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet, a number
according to G. G. Simpson of approximately one thousand million, could be
held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the
information in every book ever written."

p. 342

"It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we
look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an
absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of
chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a
reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is
complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very
antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the
intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity
exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced
artifacts appear clumsy.

Erbrich, Paul. "On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a
Particular Function," Acta Biotheoretica, vol. 34 (1985), pp. 53-80.

p. 77

"Why then does the scientific theory of evolution hold on to the concept
of chance to the degree it does? I suspect it is the fact that there is no
alternative whatsoever which could explain the fact of universal evolution,
at least in principle, and be formulated within the framework of natural
science. If no alternative should be forthcoming, if chance remains
overtaxed, then the conclusion seems inevitable that evolution and therefore
living beings cannot be grasped by natural science to the same extent as
non-living things—not because organisms are so complex, but because the
explaining mechanism is fundamentally inadequate."

"Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened
on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that
span the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts
the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise
to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings
turns out to be less than 1 in 1040,000."

"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical
reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the
necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly not the
waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same
is true for living material."

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate
matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it…. It is big enough to
bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup,
neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were
not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful
intelligence."